1. The part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as follows:

2.(a)

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim).

1. The Plaintiff at the first instance court, as the principal suit, filed a claim for KRW 20 million in total, including the cost of waterproof construction work at the place of the instant store caused by the cancellation of the lease contract, and KRW 2 million in total, as the lease contract was terminated due to frequent water leakage and the Defendant’s demand for waterproof construction without any ground (i.e., KRW 1 million), and KRW 8 million in compensation for damages (i.e., KRW 1 million), (ii) KRW 30 million in total, including the cost of installing facilities at the place of the instant store caused by the occurrence of the occurrence of the damage, and damages for delay.

The court of first instance ordered the Defendant to pay KRW 11,454,156 [the total estimated cost of KRW 14,919,747 - the total cost of restoration - the total cost of KRW 5,598,463) - the unpaid electric charges, etc. of KRW 224,560,00,000 for the waterproof construction cost of KRW 1,000,000 for the delivery of the store of this case and simultaneous performance at the same time.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the purport that KRW 9,321,284 should not be deducted from the deposit. The Defendant filed an appeal to the effect that: (a) the sum of KRW 6,598,463, including KRW 5,598,463, and the waterproof construction cost ordered by the first instance court to pay the amount of KRW 1,00,000,000, which was not deducted by the first instance court; and (b) the Defendant’s money to be paid by the Defendant is only KRW 4,85,693 (=amount of KRW 11,454,156 - additional deductible amount of KRW 6,598,463).

Therefore, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to both appeals filed by each party, that is, to the range of the cost of restitution deducted from the total cost of restitution of 14,919,747 and whether the defendant's obligation to pay the cost of waterproof construction cost of KRW 1 million.

2. The reasoning of this part of the facts of recognition is the same as that of Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The fact that the instant lease agreement was terminated by agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the refund of the lease deposit does not have any dispute between the parties.